Search results

Background  Psychologists are often asked to prepare reports on suspects, complainants and witnesses with intellectual disabilities for court. Increasingly, the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales are being used as part of the assessment process. This paper critically examines the use of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales with adults with intellectual disabilities and considers alternative explanations for test data.Argument  It is argued that the scales have been developed in a way that significantly disadvantages people with intellectual disabilities compared with those of average ability. The scales are more likely to elicit acquiescent responses from people with intellectual disabilities as participants are questioned on information they can barely recall. Drawing on models of memory developed in the field of cognitive neuroscience, it is argued that this is a consequence of examining unimodal input into semantic memory, which is impaired in people with intellectual disabilities. Police interviews are rarely concerned with semantic memory alone but with autobiographical event memory of multimodal input. Research on people with intellectual disabilities' event memory shows higher levels of accuracy, less of a tendency to acquiesce and greater resistance to suggestion.Conclusions  Currently, the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales are the only tests available for the assessment of interrogative suggestibility. However, psychologists using these scales with adults with intellectual disabilities should do so with caution as their validity is questionable. Studies of intellectually disabled adults' autobiographical event memory show that they can provide reasonably accurate accounts of events and resist questions designed to alter their account.

AbstractBackgroundInterventions for offenders with intellectual disabilities (ID) have used cognitive variables as measures of treatment outcome. However, the relevance of cognitive variables to offending in people with intellectual disabilities is unclear. This review aimed to evaluate the evidence for a relationship between cognitive variables and offending in people with intellectual disabilities.MethodA systematic search identified studies comparing offenders and non‐offenders with intellectual disabilities on an aspect of cognition. Seven cognitive variables were found and compared across 15 studies. These were appraised for their quality using an adapted quality appraisal checklist. The reliability and validity of cognitive measures were also considered.Results and conclusionsOther than for cognitive distortions, the evidence for a relationship between cognitive variables and offending in people with intellectual disabilities is currently limited due to methodological weaknesses and the small number of studies assessing each variable. Clinicians are advised to focus on cognitive distortions until better evidence is available.

Purpose
There has been little empirical investigation into the theoretical relationship between moral reasoning and offending in people with intellectual disabilities (ID). The purpose of this paper is to compare offending and non-offending ID groups on a new measure of social-moral awareness, and on theory of mind (ToM).


Design/methodology/approach
A between groups design was used. The scores of 21 male offenders and 21 male non-offenders, all with ID and matched for IQ, were compared on the Social-Moral Awareness Test (SMAT) and on two ToM tasks.


Findings
There was no significant difference in SMAT scores or on first- or second-order ToM tasks between offending and non-offending groups. Better ToM performance significantly predicted higher SMAT scores and non-offending groups. Better ToM performance significantly predicted higher SMAT scores.


Research limitations/implications
Results were inconsistent with previous research. Further work is required to establish the validity and theoretical underpinnings of the SMAT. Development in the measurement of ToM for people with ID is also required.


Originality/value
This is the first use of the SMAT with a population of offenders who have ID. The findings suggest caution in its use in clinical settings.

BackgroundJARID has a long and positive association with qualitative research dating back to its first issue. This paper looks at the development of qualitative methods and their application in the field of intellectual disability (ID).MethodWhen invited to make a contribution on qualitative research for the 25th Anniversary of JARID, the present authors considered the options. We examined the frequency with which qualitative studies have been published in three major intellectual disability journals over a decade, and we considered attempting a systematic review or a meta‐synthesis.ResultsThe volume of published studies has increased, but there were too many across a diverse range of topics for a systematic review of qualitative research in general; but not enough for a systematic review or meta‐synthesis with a particular focus. However, there were many issues that needed to be aired. This paper therefore contains some critical reflections on the use of qualitative methods.ConclusionIf we want to hear the voices of people who have ID then we need appropriate ways to do this. Qualitative methods are playing an increasing role in bringing the unknown about people who have ID into the known. The approach plays a valuable role in informing us about the experiences and lives of people who have ID. However, we have identified many methodological issues which will need to be further explored. At the same time, we need to develop methods to enable increased participation of people who have ID in some aspects of research. The participatory paradigm is more established in qualitative approaches as it lends itself to participation in generating research questions, developing interview questions, conducting interviews and even stages of the analysis. There are clearly areas that need to be addressed by trained researchers and the whole process will need some facilitation and support. Writing up for journals is one aspect that could be very problematic: so other forms of dissemination need to be explored.

BackgroundThere is growing evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy to treat anger in offenders with intellectual disabilities. The aim is to lower anger levels; the rationale is that this will reduce recidivism. However, the hypothesis that anger levels amongst offenders are higher than non‐offenders has not been tested.MethodThe study utilizes a case‐comparison design to examine whether levels of anger are higher amongst people with intellectual disabilities who have offended in comparison with those who have not offended. Anger levels are compared for 29 offenders with intellectual disabilities and 27 non‐offenders with intellectual disabilities (all male).ResultsNo differences were found between offenders and non‐offenders on measures of anger. The offending group was shown to have higher levels of aggression.ConclusionsResults suggest that there is no difference in levels of anger between offender and non‐offenders to begin with. The limitations of the study are discussed, but the implication of the study questions the legitimacy of the rationale to utilize anger treatment to reduce recidivism in offenders with intellectual disabilities.

Background Because of a lack of research investigating empathy in sex offenders with intellectual disabilities, this study explored empathy in sex offenders and non‐offenders with intellectual disabilities. Specific aims were to explore differences between these groups on measures of the components of empathy.Methods The scores of 21 sex‐offenders and 21 non‐offenders with intellectual disabilities, matched by age, gender and IQ, were compared on the Test of Emotional Perception.Results No differences were found between the two groups across the components of empathy. However, sex offenders who had received treatment performed better on tasks of emotion recognition, emotion replication and response decision than the non‐offenders.Conclusions Further research is needed to understand empathy in sex offenders with intellectual disabilities before any recommendations can be made regarding treatment programmes.

Background  Research into self‐harm among people with intellectual disabilities has focused predominantly on high frequency internally maladaptive behaviour among people whose disability is severe or profound. Research into different forms of self‐harm, such as cutting or burning the skin, found in those with mild intellectual disabilities; especially those living in secure accommodation, has largely been neglected, although there has been recognition of its impact on individuals and staff working in this field. This study aimed to address this issue through exploration of the experiences and understanding of self‐harm among people with intellectual disabilities living in secure accommodation. A second aim was to explore experiences of interventions associated with this behaviour.Method and Results  Semi‐structured interviews were carried out with nine people who self harm, have intellectual disabilities and had been placed in secure accommodation. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis yielded three master themes. The first related to the interpersonal context of self‐harm and included sub themes relating to past experiences of abuse and loss, and current issues of control and protection. The second master theme related to the emotional experience of self‐harm, which varied throughout the process of self‐harm and was characterized by anger, frustration, hopelessness, relief, guilt and regret. The third master theme related to the management of self‐harm. Participants had experience of helpful individual and collaborative strategies, as well as interventions that were experienced as controlling, unhelpful or ridiculing.Conclusion  Emerging themes are considered in relation to the wider‐self‐harm literature and current psychotherapeutic models. A number of limitations to the study are noted and the use of this methodology with people with intellectual disabilities was discussed.

The debate concerning the provision of psychotherapy services for people with intellectual disabilities has moved on from issues of 'relevance' through 'equity' to the current issue of 'effectiveness'. The latter is hard to prove from the available research and clinical literature. In this paper we report preliminary results from an evaluation of a psychodynamic psychotherapy service for adults with intellectual disabilities. We present the rationale and design, including details of process and outcome measures, and preliminary results. Issues concerning operationalisation of such a study in normal clinical practice are discussed. Preliminary results suggest good outcome and so we seek to enable other service‐providers to take account of our plans in designing similar studies.

Background Research on prediction of violent and sexual offending behaviour has developed considerably in the mainstream criminological literature. Apart from one publication [Quinsey (2004)Offenfers with Developmental Disabilities, pp. 131–142] this has not been extended to the field of intellectual disabilities.Methods Work on actuarial instruments, dynamic variables, clinical judgement and structured clinical judgement is reviewed.Results A number of studies comparing actuarial instruments in terms of their predictive validity are reviewed. Relative effectiveness and applicability to intellectual disability is considered. A framework for dynamic variables is outlined and the importance of dynamic variables for inclusion in risk prediction is established. Strengths and limitations of clinical judgement are reported and the importance of reliability is noted. Finally, structured clinical judgement is reviewed in terms of the way in which it combines the other three groups of variables.Conclusions The information regarding different methods of risk assessment is integrated with research and opinion contained in the Special Issue. Risk prediction will always be a judgement and as such there will always be errors in judgement. As clinicians, researchers and policy makers it is our duty to employ the latest research information to make predictions that are as accurate as possible. However, we must also help to promote a culture that can be tolerant of inevitable errors.

Background  The assimilation model and the assimilation of problematic experiences scale (APES), provide a structured account of changes occurring within psychotherapy. The model proposes that the clients assimilate their problematic experience through the development of schema observable in the psychotherapeutic setting. The model provides a way of describing change in psychotherapy independent of affiliation to a single theoretical school. This paper aims to demonstrate the application of APES methodology to psychotherapy with people with intellectual disabilities.Methods  An innovative research procedure is implemented, utilizing transcript and rating procedures in relation to a client and therapist dialogue within psychodynamic psychotherapy. Outcome data is collected from psychometric questionnaires. Quantitative data and qualitative methods are combined to portray results in the format of a single case study.Results  The presented case illustrates assimilation achieved by a client with intellectual disabilities within and across psychotherapy sessions. Outcome data is also provided.Conclusions  This study provides a newly obtained information on the applicability of psychotherapy and the assimilation model in relation to this client group. The outcome data acts as a point of reference with which to examine the nature and validity of APES findings. The present authors argue that process research has a significant role in advancing our understanding of psychotherapy with the people with intellectual disabilities.